Trans rights activism, a GC male perspective

All we need to complete the set is talk of how empowering prostitution is for women and feminists are to blame for any harm by ‘driving it underground’.

What has happened to FWR?

I can’t believe we are now saying men need boys clubs for protection from ‘false accusations’ on the same thread that ‘poor dads’ get a sympathetic mention for needing to dress up as superheroes because their terrorised wives and children fled from them.

Are we going back in time?

@SpicyMoth,

I agree with every word of that.

I would not argue for a second that men don't need their own spaces. They need their own spaces for privacy and dignity (and vulnerability to false accusations) as well.

I just think that public social situations don't carry that risk to the extent that men should have whole social clubs that exclude women in the way that they used to.

I'm talking about the strip club culture (where there are women who could very easily make such an allegation) or the old boy's clubs. Those are the specific spaces that OP was talking about that have triggered men being pissed off with women for invading. That and Scouts were the examples, I think.

I haven't really thought through my feelings about Scouts, by the way. I used to volunteer with the cubs when my daughter was involved and most of the volunteers were Mums. There were 3 regular Dads. Without the women, there would have been no club. I think spaces for boys to be together and have male role models is positive, but it was abused previously by men will ill intent and not enough Dads want to help out and make them happen.

Changing rooms, toilets, enclosed spaces where privacy is necessary and spaces for counselling, emotionally support or Domestic Abuse support - absolutely men need those and I would fight for them.

There are positive male qualities too....in that some men can feel protective and solicitous towards women, and so alter or modify their behaviour in their presence.

Yes, it is. There is a thread to discuss it ( Mary Harrington's book)

The central 'spine' of her exploration is centred around the differnces between the sexes and how they have been negotiated through time and through circumstance. Sexed differences are highly reisitant to being 'disappeared' or done away with, and one has to conclude that is not just down to socialisation.
How do we best manage the relationship and the assymetries between the sexes in a way which best honours everyone.

@lifeissweet
Apologies, I've not gone through the entire conversation of quotes as it's a bit long, but I do have maybe some insight on your point here;

"There is no such argument for a single sex golf club.

Unless OP has one. I still don't have an answer to: what do men need to do that they can't do with women present?

I get the talking about emotions, relationships...etc - and spaces for that exist and are legitimate.

But what difference does having women on a golf course make to the men there?

Is it - as I suggested unthread - that they are less censored with women present? What else is there?"

Apologies if this is not very well thought through or if there's holes in my suggestion for a possible reasoning, I'm more so just thinking out loud and would like to know other's thoughts;
(I'd also like to preface this by saying that I knew someone who falsely accused someone else when we were teenagers, it ruined the guy's life. It was 100% confirmed she was lying so she wouldn't get broken up with for cheating, so this is from a position of anecdotal experience/sympathy for what this guy went through)

They might feel the need for a male only space because of the fear of women making false allegations.
I don't mean that from a PoV that women don't get abused or assaulted or face discrimination, obviously we do. And I also don't mean to say that all women are lying about their experiences and shouldn't be believed.
But it doesn't do anyone any good to pretend that women aren't fallible. Women can behave in gross ways too.

It would be disingenuous to suggest that there are no women and girls, who will intentionally lie and ruin someone's entire life for arbitrary reasons like regretting sleeping with someone, or trying to make it look like you didn't cheat, you were just assaulted instead.

In the same way as not all men are abusive or rapists, but enough are that it's a genuine fear.
Not all women would lie about something like that, but enough of them do that it's a genuine fear men have.
This is widely discussed in a bunch of subreddits as a legitimate issue and fear that men and boys have.

There's probably some people who would say "That's comeuppance for abuse & inequality in the first place, they deserve it, no men's spaces!"

There's also I imagine the argument to be made that "It's not the same! It's so rare in comparison to females being abused so they don't need spaces!"
That may be the case, but as an example TRA's will argue that TW in Women's sports is rare, so they don't need their own category.

Could we not instead agree that women being abused is not good, and men being falsely accused is also not good?
And because of both of those things, both sexes should have access to sex segregated spaces.

I can believe it Nils and Nep

I see it in action reguarly. I attend meetings for work, varied people so not the same group. 90% of the time the staff are women only. When women-only, the women talk freely and contribute. On the occasions where one or two male members of staff join the group, the men (perfectly pleasant, professional) are the first to respond to every point and it's difficult to get the women to speak or engage at all. They defer and give ground. The male staff confidently take ground. It's all unconsciously done.

What I have noticed is that if you count the times different participants speak, that dynamic changes. Suddenly the men in the group, even if new, speak a lot more than everyone else, even a lot more than the minority of women who speak a lot. (I once counted these times in several meetings by drawing little lines under names on my papers, for my own information).

About two decades ago a friend mentioned to me that a group of women in her very male-dominated industry had created a small professional support group for women in that industry, with the idea of going swimming or dinner etc. together to build connections.

She told me that two men in her firm severely interrogated her about this (it was advertised in various newsletters so men knew about it) and wanted to know if business was going to be done in those meetings.

They were very angry about the possibility that this might be the case, even though they took visiting male business partners to places where women were not allowed (strip clubs). This suggested to my friend and me that business was being done in those meetings and not just support (and titillation).

In my experience - the dynamics completely change when a man joins what was a women-only space. The women start self-censoring and dick-pandering.

You can suggest anything you like but without proof, your belief that people change their behaviour is just an assumption or a hypothesis. I don't think they do. I can't prove that either but as we are both making assumptions, I'm not sure that's a robust enough reason to exclude women from spaces. Even if it is true, it would need more thinking through to justify that. My 'extreme' comment was just about the 'forever' comment. I am not talking about what should happen in 200 years time. I am talking about right now - in a society in which men continue to hold the power, earn more than women, leave the drudge work to women, kill women, rape women etc. etc. In a utopia women may no longer be the subordinates but that is neither here not there with regards to what we consider acceptable today. That book sounds interesting.

Women need to insist on our own terms when accepting male protection otherwise we are giving away our autonomy to male control.

Oops! Wrong thread. Ignore!

@SpicyMoth i think it wasn’t disagreeing with OPs opinions, it was more him being pulled up on some social faux pas in a feminist forum. Men should expect to tread carefully in such places and I think he got off lightly - especially since he has shown alignment with anti feminist positions.

I am not willing to sell out my rights for male protection thanks.

Re; your thread updates @RealityFan
For what it's worth, I very much appreciated reading what you had to say. And I genuinely hope you stick around and post more, and maybe even come to some events?

I think men are needed in this space honestly. Father's especially.

Perhaps this is the scummy centrist in me talking, but I feel like some of the responses in this thread have been a bit alienating? Perhaps?
(Ie, OP stating the fact he's male being perceived by other's as mansplaining or "announcing" his entrance)
I understand why, of course, but I fear we run the risk of doing exactly what we hate the TRA's doing.

Un-allying people who share your views for the most part, just because they don't agree 100%, or you don't like the way they went about it.

Suggesting their opinions/thoughts are not wanted because, "man".
Is the same as TRA's saying our opinions/thoughts are not wanted because "Terf" in my opinion.

There's so many brave women here willing to show their real faces and risk actual tangible violence at these events, but there's also a large section of us (I assume I can't be the only one), who are genuinely afraid to go to these events, especially in the wake of what happened in NZ, London, and Nashville.

I'm a bit old fashioned for my age in that I very much would like a man with me/near me most of the time, even more so during a volatile situation.

I'm bang on 5ft tall, I'm tiny, and I've felt what it's like to be punched by a member of the opposite sex before.
I would feel reassured knowing that if something kicks off, there's men bigger and stronger and tougher than us who can defend and get us to safety if needs be.
I think the more men we have showing up at LWS event's or similar, the more confident other women will be to poke their heads out above the parapet.

As much as some people seemingly don't want this to be the case, we very much need men like you to come and stand alongside us.

I suggest most people do alter their behaviour even if not fully consciously in the presence of the opposite sex - certainly in public situations.

I don't think I'm being "extreme" as you suggest - it is more that my over view of the relations between male and female is shifting. I'm finding Mary Harrington's book 'Feminism against Progress' very interesting - but I've been shifting in that direction for quite a while anyway.

I'm not sure I'm in the mood for lenghty exposition right now, to be honest. My thoughts on the issue ae not fixed and they are evolving.

Yes. And this has been why women historically made such good spies - the blokes thought the women serving them tea were too brainless to be a threat.

I had forgotten this lifeissweet !!
Of course women are allowed in men only areas. For cleaning, cooking, serving and titillation. As a service human. They are just not allowed as a full member on par with the men.

I think one of the differences is that women only spaces tend to have no men in them. If the reason for the space is dignity and safety, often even the staff are women only.

There have always been women in male only spaces. They are the waiting staff and bar staff. They are allowed in to work serving men.

Or they are there to strip or provide visual appeal (thinking cigarette girls in the Playboy club). It all fed into the same culture we want to fight against.

I remember my mother going to Dad's all male Cricket Club to do the teas with the other wives. They weren't allowed in some rooms and weren't permitted to stay for the post-match socialising, though.

If men wanted their own spaces for the same reasons as women, I would have no argument with that. That doesn't seem to be the case, though. It isn't to address a power imbalance or protect safety and privacy. It feels more about superiority and elitism.

We don't all alter our behaviour in mixed sex groups. Please don't generalise from your own experience. Even if that were true, that does no justify excluding women from an entire business. Women can be in the building or in another group in a large room and clearly not part of your group. Yes I believe there is no justification for men-only clubs in the sense of the whole club being male only. Perhaps as nils outlined above, some specific groups for men in limited circumstances. Not whole gold clubs or business clubs for men only. Whether they initially intend to create a nepotistic context, is not relevant, the question is whether that could be the effect. Who's talking about forever? If we ever redress the balance, the limited women-only contexts could be reconsidered. I'm wondering you could not make a reasoned argument without going for this extreme case justification? (which was introduced by you, not me).

Typos ...sorry